Going to the very heart of Zen.

December 31, 2014

The bulk of my friends are in their twenties. This gives me an opportunity to see how Zen or for that matter, Buddhism, will work in the future. What I have learned is that it is best to lean towards shamanism, in the sense of helping a person restore their spiritual senses. It is then much easier to introduce the more recondite side of Buddhism to them which is about realizing one’s true nature, or the same, intuiting pure Mind.

All of us have a spiritual side, but most people have been so despiritualized from childhood that they are no longer aware of what they are missing. By being despiritualized, such people have become devitalized, consumer automatons. Neither Zen nor Buddhism can be learned in such a deplorable state. It is only though some form of shamanism that this problem might be remedied. This includes the use of spiritual artifacts, including malas, special kinds of incense, mantras, astrology, etc. It also includes a kind of ritualized sitting and prostrations much like is done in Vajrayana.

Until one comes into the presence of the luminous Mind (also the Light of Mahayana), or has strong faith that awakening to this radiant Mind is doable, curative and restorative path is necessary. It is then a matter of coupling one’s despiritualized mind, corrupted by materialism, to spiritual artifacts, symbols, even to mantras, etc. It is almost impossible to drop the influences of Western materialism, leaping into the heart of Buddhism or Zen Buddhism, fully understanding what is going on.

So powerful is the poison of materialism that nothing else will do except some form of shamanism—maybe even a modern day form. I would even include martial arts as a shaman-like strategy, for example, Aikido which has its roots in Shinto (Omotokyo).

December 30, 2014

Hidden in the denial or questioning of rebirth is the belief that death is absolute and final. This reflects a deep seated adherence to a belief in materialism/nihilism (and to a marked degree irreligion). To overthrow this belief, one would have to make a persuasive argument that there is life after death and that karma, that is, one’s present actions is what determines the next life.

Speaking for myself, I don’t see modern man as being anymore than a materialist who has pretty much accepted the fact that death will be the end of him. He shows no interest in the other side, that the mental side still continues even though the physical side is no more. He remains ever the skeptic.

Shifting gears, why Buddhism attracts materialist/nihilists into its ranks is somewhat puzzling. Let’s be clear about what is happening. Such people who enter the ranks of Buddhism do not believe in rebirth, karma or the transcendent (nirvana) since death is, in the end, all there is. This they believe is all that we can be certain of with certainty! So we need ask, what is to be gained by studying Buddhism? Is it because such people see Buddhism as the religion of the modern world; which celebrates no self and emptiness? This is a troubling question which is reflected in the overarching question of what nirvana means to its Western interpreters which is a subject the average Western Buddhist, who leans heavily towards materialism/nihilism, seems reluctant to take up.

These same people make the mistake of reading Nagarjuna as saying that nirvana and samsara are fundamentally the same; then go on from there with what can only be characterized as adding confusion to confusion. To be sure, this is somewhat like flying into a fog with no GPS or even a hand held compass.

Such an idea that nirvana and samsara are fundamentally the same doesn't exactly comport with the discourses of the Buddha in the Pali Nikayas either. On this note, the Buddha in the Sutta-Nipata answering Kappa's question, speaks of a an island (dipa) for those overcome by old age and death which is a place of no-things (akiñcana), a place of non-possession and non-attachment. He says it is the end of death and decay. It is called nirvana. How it must ring odd to the Western Buddhist that nirvana is a place where there is no death. These are not the words of a materialist nor the words of an epistemological nihilist!

Let me close this for now with a pericope by the Buddha found in the Udana. Hard is the infinite to see; truth is no easy thing to see (VIII ii).

December 28, 2014

I have said this before, in so many words, that the truth of materialism is nihilism which is saying that life is, fundamentally, meaningless. It is not difficult to see this if one is not immersed and drowning in materialism; who has no mind left by which to see anything else.

The most astonishing thing about materialism and nihilism is their relationship with death—not death leading to another life, in the example of rebirth, but death as final. Materialism’s apotheosis is death—the big blank. For the living who are materialists death also points to the overall meaninglessness of this life and all of its endeavors and struggles. Death is the nirvana of nihilism whereby all meaning to life is erased. Life becomes absurd.

Religion, it has not been acknowledged as much as it should, has stood against both materialism and its nihilism. Even if religion cannot say with certainty if there is truly a God or a benevolent power overseeing this life of ours, nevertheless, it makes a concerted effort to steer mankind away from the darkness of materialism and with materialism the despair of nihilism.

The finality of death, we can be sure, is materialism’s great hope and maybe its new God. And the nihilist may dwell on death who is thoroughly convinced there is nothing beyond physicality. All the evil he or she has done, even all the good, is washed away by holy death! In this lightless world, Buddhism is an enemy of materialism and its truth which is nihilism. The Buddha certainly teaches the immortal sphere (amrita-dhatu); that we can directly see it in meditation. He also teaches that the end of this life does not completely end, but continues as consciousness (vijñâna) which is reborn again owing to its karmic inclinations. Ultimately, there is everlasting life. Death can be vanquished.

For Buddhism, nature or the world of samsara is mortal, incomplete and dependent. It does not exist by itself. It totally lacks its own nature or its own power. In cannot posit itself. Our psychophysical body (the five skandhas) is not outside of this limitation (samsara). In every way, it is also finite: enclosed and restrained, so that even sensory consciousness must be in the mode of finitude.

Illimitable spirit or Suchness (tathatâ) does not show itself, or the same, it does not appear. Consciousness, which is finite, is the continual negation of spirit which means that consciousness is the mode of the finite's becoming (samsara). Each finite thing, as a moment, cancels itself becoming still another finite moment and so on. The finite does not last; it cannot abide. As the Buddha tells us, “all [finite] things are impermanent.” Finally, in death the finite psychophysical body perishes. Consciousness gloms onto another finite system.

If we think about desire it is the desire of the finite, which is limited and enclosed spirit, to free itself from its finite chains (i.e., suffering). But consciousness driven by desire cannot liberate itself from the finite. We have to keep in mind that even consciousness, according to the Buddha, is not my self, but my self has, nevertheless, become confused with the mode of consciousness which, in truth, is a false conscious self. This is why meditation or dhyana has to overcome the mode of consciousness which is finite.

What has to be overcome by dhyana is, first of all, the self believed to be subject which negates all objectivity and all content so that it becomes, itself, nothing. Next, dhyana must overcome this abstract nothing the subject has become which is mere absence. What is overcome, in a nutshell, is finitude which is the truth of consciousness. What the self truly is lies ever beyond the mode of consciousness. Put another way, the finite can neither grasp nor comprehend the infinite.

December 24, 2014

Beginners should learn, first of all, that dependent origination only relates to conditioned reality, the world they are living in. On the other hand, nirvana only relates to unconditioned, non-empirical reality. Nirvana is the logical counterpart of dependent origination, of all that passes as transitory and conditioned which is illusory and unreal. Above all, nirvana is absolute.

If a beginner thinks this is dualistic, then how dualistic is water with ice floating in it? Nirvana points to the absolute substance that composes our illusory world. Every conditioned thing is a configuration of it. These configurations are dependent originations. Even thoughts and emotions are dependent originations which are non-ultimate experiences.

The main purpose of Buddhist meditation is to see the absolute which is not a dependent origination. It is not meant to help us to find peace in the rat race we cling to or to calm us down after we have had a bad day at the store. That is meditation for people who don’t care about Buddhism; who just want to use it for their own ends. Buddhist meditation has loftier aims.

For those of us who are daring enough to wish to attain nirvana, to have liberation of Mind, it happens when we reach the essence or substance of thought. We can call this essence the âtman or tathatâ (suchness). By reaching this essence we have met our very self, but only having passed through what is not our self or anâtman. We have, in other words, passed through dependent originations—all conditionality. We have also returned to our self by this meditative process.

All beings, to begin with, are the very essence of thought. But all they know and see are thoughts, and coarser thoughts and their emotions and feelings. The essence does not recognize itself surrounded by dependent originations. It is only by transcending thoughts, emotions, and feelings—all that we perceive and are conscious of, that it has any chance of recognizing itself—coming face to face with itself, attaining nirvana.

December 23, 2014

In his U.S. visit in 1979, Ajahn Chah speaking to a group of young Americans who had just opened up a Buddhist meditation center had this warning for them.

"You will succeed in truly spreading the Buddha-Dhamma here only if you are not afraid to challenge the desires and opinions of your students (literally ‘to stab their hearts’). If you do this, you will succeed; if you do not, if you change the Teachings and the practice to fit the existing habits and opinions of people out of a misguided sense of wanting to please them, you will have failed in your duty to serve in the best way possible."

This is quite prophetic. Since that time, the West, it is fair to say, changed more or less the Buddha's teachings in an effort to please their students. Many of those who have spent time and money to bring Buddhism to the West have failed in their duty because they secularized Buddhism. It is not even the case of putting new wine into old wine skins in which the new teaching bursts the limits of the old. It is more like putting in some diet soft drink which is not wine. Even new wine is still wine.

Buddhism is meant to challenge us, not please us. It is not like a bottle of Advil or a particular kind of therapy to get us back on our feet so we can become better materialists. Buddhism has a definite aim. It is escape from the conditioned world: a world that we are deeply attached to which is painful and limited. This world even includes our psychophysical body which, according to the Buddha, is suffering. Buddhism demands of us that we develop an attitude that is dedicated to seeking the transcendent which is supramundane. To get to this level involves some not so pleasant encounters with our stubbornness, spiritual stupidity, and arrogance. If we think of our spiritual side as a child, we are guilty of child abuse! We have all but despiritualized that side of us.

I hope someday to share with those who read this blog what the payoff is if one sticks, so to speak, with the non-secular prime directive of Buddhism which is to realize the unconditioned (it comes in many different names from nirvana to Buddha-nature, One Mind, and pure Mind). It is not impossible to achieve; and much more happens after that which is right up there with the paranormal and close encounters. By no measure is Buddhism a dead religion. It is always looking for a few good people.

December 22, 2014

It should be obvious, but the reason one doesn’t realize the pure Mind, or the same, Buddha-nature, is that it is obstructed by defilements. Ordinary beings (S., prithagjana) are defiled by gross defilements. It’s like a traveler facing a formidable mountain rage he must cross at some risk to his life. It is not an easy crossing. There are powerful urges within such people. They take counsel with many wrong views, opinions, and assumptions. Looking within oneself is of no interest to them. They are often incorrigible and never learn from experience.

Many who enter the temple of Buddhism are content with most of their defilements. They may only want to face and change a few defilements: the ones that are hard for them to live with on a day to day basis such as managing their anger. Fulfilling their strong urges and desires is their raison d'être. What else might be better than this? Don’t say the realization of pure Mind! They are not interested. They only want to continue on their merry way oblivious to what Buddhism is really about; only wishing to get rid of a few defilements.

There is a second—not so bad—group. These are people aspiring to become awakened; who wish to become authentic Bodhisattvas by realizing bodhicittotpada (manifesting the mind that is bodhi or awakened) and thereby enter the path to Buddhahood. This group not only has some measure of good karma from previous lives but their karma enables them to look within; knowing fully well, this is where they will find pure Mind. They have only a few obstructing defilements. Once shown the right course of action, they quickly learn. This group is certainly not incorrigible. They are not facing a mountain range but, instead, rolling hills.

The last group are the Buddhas. They see the pure Mind, clearly. It is like seeing the water the waves are made from being no longer mesmerized by the action of the waves. Why desire waves when you are the water? Thus comes the end of avidya and with it the end of rebirth.

To sum it up, all beings have the potential to become Buddhas because its essence lies in all beings but few can understand that what they cling to and hold dear are defilements. They act to hide the luminosity of this essence or garbha. Every thought, every emotion, including their pains and desires hide it. Despite the words of the Buddha with their simple beauty and clarity they still can’t grasp their import. They twist them into something they are not saying.

December 21, 2014

Last night, I was talking with some of my graduate student friends at our local pub. I would call them believers in the theory that consciousness is generated by brain tissue. By contrast I am one of those who says, “Brains come from consciousness” when we look at the world from its absolute substance (which we are). Despite our conversation my two friends remained materialists. The conversation moved to talking about science and its direction. I let them know about my view of science. They let me know about their view of science; that it doesn’t require faith (code word for religion).

I said that science does require dogmas in the sense of unjustified and unproven assumptions about reality, for example, there is no reality except material reality or consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain as with Carl Sagan’s claim sans evidence: “The cerebral cortex, where matter is transformed into consciousness, is the point of embarkation for all our cosmic voyages.”

I finally walked home and thought more of our conversation. I found it interesting that science gets a free pass with its unproven dogmas. On the other hand, religion, including theoretical knowledge and the paranormal, can’t have a free pass because they rest on first-person experience which doesn’t count much in the world of the empirical sciences. Science has to see consciousness in order to prove that it exists. It has to see the substance of the universe as something for the senses which, by the way, it still hasn’t managed to see. The way science looks at things, it is inconceivable to believe that the fundamental basis of existence is not, itself, an existent thing like an acorn.

According to science, why would anyone wish to take up a religion like Buddhism? There is no proof that there is an ultimate reality which is much more real than what the instruments of science can view and manipulate. Oh, but wait! We are confusing science with materialism. Materialism seems necessary insofar as we have no other way of answering the question is there any other reality besides matter? It is all most people perceive; it agrees with common sense. On the other hand, materialism tells the average person nothing about life in the same way that biology tells us nothing about life. It only tells us about living organisms, their structure and behavior. Studying the brain also, tells us nothing about life or the nature of mind or consciousness.

Materialism can tell us nothing about life which seems obviously at work in a vital being as compared with a dead body which is lifeless. One may even be led to suspect that the more we engage with materialism the less life has meaning for us. Our life begins to mean nothing. And as we sense it gradually becoming nothing we drink more of the poison of materialism. By this, we only hasten our suffering and death.

December 17, 2014

Just recently on 60 Minutes, Anderson Cooper explored the subject of mindfulness. He participated in a group led by the scientist Jon Kabat-Zinn, who has been practicing mindfulness for forty-seven years. The only thing I found rather amazing in all of this is it has taken the public and MSM a very long time to see the immediate benefits of so-called “mindfulness practice” which, by the way, is very effective for depression.

When I began to study Zen back in 1965 I learned Zen mindfulness which is far more intense than in Jon Kabat-Zinn’s group. My teacher expected awareness all the time, even being mindful of what you are thinking. In fact, if he asked me what I was thinking about, I had to tell him. This served to make me become, over time, very aware of my thinking. Daydreaming began to fall by the wayside!

I had to learn how to brush my teeth with mindfulness, sweep with mindfulness, take care of the temple garden with mindfulness, even load the dishwasher with mindfulness! This included placing bowls down, making tea, digging a hole or helping Sensei put on a new roof required intense mindfulness. Zazen was actually relaxing if you can imagine that.

Eventually, a person learns how to do this on their own—it becomes internalized. I should mention that it serves as a baseline. If, for example, you get out of kilter with a stressful day at work, you know exactly how to get back on kilter. This is a practice, once you learn it, has to be kept up. When I practiced Zen mindfulness living alone doing kung-fu/gongfu (the term kung-fu is used in Zen for very serious dedication/work to win awakening to pure Mind) it was doing zazen in an old abandoned mine and many other things with intense devotion to mindfulness. I became aware of each step I took; how I used my hand tools; cooked and studied. But more, I was aware of my mind. I knew that I was looking at pure Mind but was clueless to how it was on its own terms. I still couldn’t see it. The whole process of mindfulness is working back to ‘zero’ you could say; it has the effect of neutralizing everything around us making it less than what it was before (i.e., making it illusory). I realized that this helped me, eventually, to see pure Mind on its own terms—but not without mindfulness leading the way.

The world has changed, radically, with regard to consciousness/mind. The materialist version of consciousness, or perhaps better, the clock-work version, is in the morgue. It is dead. This means the general dogma that consciousness is somehow a by-product of the brain has been quietly superseded. The only problem is that there has been no formal and well publicized burial of this antiquated dogma. Pop science still believes—especially in the field of neuroscience—that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. Some scientists have made themselves defenders of the clock-work version of consciousness.

This backwardness is due in large part to a failure to understand the implications of QM (quantum mechanics) and what it has done to the clock-work mentality that still thrives in academia. Over-simplifying the story somewhat, over a hundred years ago physicists, looking for the ultimate physical explanation of reality stumbled, inadvertently, into consciousness (something like William Kingdon Clifford's 'mind-stuff'). This was a shock. In the words of Niels Bohr, "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." At this point the implications became huge. Following this discovery two distinct schools of thought faced each other in a huge paradigm war. On one side, there are those defending the clock-work, mechanical version of reality and those on the side of QM who go so far as to say that forms of consciousness is all that science has observed (there is no physical reality), and we are conscious agents (Dr. Donald Hoffman).

Turning to the public, they are hopelessly behind the learning curve. Their minds are disposed to a clock-work, mechanical vision of reality. Moreover, they are the willing stooges of the neuroscientists who are defenders of the old faith who tell us that our consciousness is brain generated — and no! there is no life after death; no Near Death Experiences, and no psychic abilities.

As mentioned earlier, there has yet been no public burial of the materialist version of consciousness. But it seems the time is getting closer. When it happens, we will accept that consciousness survives the death of the psycho-physical body and that we can entangle with higher forms of consciousness and, regrettably, with lower forms (bad karma).